An integrative review of adult patient-reported reasons for non-urgent use of the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To conduct an integrative review of the scientific literature to explore adult patient-reported reasons for using the emergency department (ED) non-urgently. Design: Integrative review. Data Sources: A literature search of CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE was conducted with filters for humans, published January 1, 1990-September 1, 2021, and English language. Review Methods: Methodological quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist for qualitative and National Institutes Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies for quantitative studies. Data was extracted on study and sample characteristics, and themes/reasons for ED use. Cited reasons were coded using thematic analysis. Results 93 studies met inclusion criteria. Seven themes were found: need to be risk averse with respect to the health issue; knowledge and awareness of alternative sources of care; dissatisfaction with primary care provider; satisfaction with ED; ED accessibility and convenience resulting in low access burden; referred to the ED by others; and relationships between patients and health care providers. Conclusion For many ED patients, they have a very clear problem which needed to be addressed. Future studies should explore psychosocial factors driving decision-making (e.g., health literacy, health-related personal beliefs, stress and coping ability). Impact: This integrative review examined patient-reported reasons for attending the ED on a non-urgent basis. The findings suggest that ED patients are heterogenous and many factors influence their decision-making. Considering the complexity with which patients live, treating them as a single entity may be problematic. Limiting excessive non-urgent visits likely requires a multi-pronged approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".